Beck: Of course Shahzad should get Mirandized!

posted at 9:30 am on May 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano both wind up on the same side of this debate, thanks to Faisal Shahzad’s status as an American citizen. “Of course” Shahzad should get Mirandized, Beck tells Fox and Friends this morning, warning that “you don’t shred the Constitution — ever.” Shahzad will get Mirandized anyway when he appears in court and a judge confirms Shahzad’s understanding of his rights during his arraignment. Napolitano points out that authorities can skip the Miranda warning, but at their own peril; anything Shahzad says won’t be able to be used in court without the warning, and law enforcement agents who deliberately withhold it could face legal sanctions for doing so. The Right Scoop captures the debate:

Beck and Napolitano are correct. Shahzad is an American citizen, arrested by law enforcement in America. As a US citizen, Shahzad has the right to remain silent. In that sense, he differs from the EunuchBomber, who attempted to enter the country (our airspace) to conduct a sabotage mission for an enemy of the US. Ambdulmuttalab should have immediately been taken into custody by military and intelligence agencies, not the FBI, in order to make his status as an enemy combatant clear.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

You are 100% correct of course, the founders would’ve agreed with you also…but that is beside the point.

The Left has so dominated the misinformation here and set the terms of the Political Correctness rules that they have totally WON THIS DEBATE.

Evidence for the win? Idiots like Beck above and Fox giving an Anarcho-Libertarian of the Lew Rockwell variety, respect and claim as a Judge.

Jihad is a crime, anyone can be a citizen regardless if they’ve declared War on the USA with total intent on Toppling it for Global Sharia Law/Rule.

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM

The solution isn’t selectively removing the rights of citizens, the solution is more stringent immigration policy. Pakistan, no matter how much we crow publicly about them being a “great ally,” should be an immediate red flag and should be cause for a thorough backgrounnd check and a 1-year freeze on naturalization. If you’re from Pakistan, we find zero links to any terrorist groups and you still want to come here a year later, then you can naturalize.

With all due respect to Judge Napolitano and Mr. Beck, I disagree. The Constitution, even as distorted by subsequent court rulings, does not require that this suspect be Mirandized.

I would suggest that the security of the people of our country demands that we know what the suspect knows, particularly about any other possible plots or terrorist actors. The importance of a later successful prosecution of the suspect in federal court pales in comparison to the importance of protecting the safety and security of our people.

It would be entirely lawful to declare the suspect to be an enemy combatant, at which point Miranda warnings become irrelevant. (Yes, American citizens can be declared to be enemy combatants. The fact that he is suspected of committing criminal acts of terrorism on our soil is not dispositive. And I would point out there is ample evidence already suggesting that the suspect engaged in training and planning with known enemy combatants overseas, outside the country.) Investigators would have greater latitude interrogating the suspect, although certainly they do not have available many highly effective methods formerly in use. As an enemy combatant, the suspect is in the jurisdiction of military tribunals, where due process is preserved but evidence revealed by the suspect is not automatically rendered inadmissible merely because he was not given a Miranda warning. (The Miranda case and its progeny do not apply outside civilian jurisdiction.)

This is WAR people, and it is long past time we sent the message to our enemies and their sympathizers that our conduct in this war will be guided by our best interests, and not the concerns over “optics” by people who would bring latte to a knife fight.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

and Congress did exactly that with the Military Commissions Law they passed.

So Beck, Hotair, ACLU….was this an Act of Treason/War or was it a CRIME????

A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.
-Thomas Jefferson

This is WAR people, and it is long past time we sent the message to our enemies and their sympathizers that our conduct in this war will be guided by our best interests, and not the concerns over “optics” by people who would bring latte to a knife fight.

Tom Clancy points out in one his books that the US government is the oldest continuous government in the world. I do not know if that is completely true or not, but it sure is a ringing endorsement for our Constitutional form of getting along. We violate that at great risk.

He should be treated as a criminal suspect until the investigation determines that his actions were part of the jihadi war on the United States. Then he should be turned over to the DoD, fully interrogated, and then tried for treason by a military tribunal.

tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

This seems reasonable. Though who exactly gets to decide that the investigation as determined that a suspect is a war criminal or enemy combatant and needs to be turned over to the DoD?

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The law enforcement officials would present their evidence that they collected by constitutional means to a military tribunal set up for the purpose — such as the hearings that were conducted for the Gitmo guys. The case would be presented by law enforcement, but the decision would be made by military. We are talking about war and national defense, right?

Shazad is a white guy. Pakistanis, as well as Afghans and Iranians, are Indo-European. Which means they are cousins of Celts, Slavs and Germans among others. Where do you think the “Indo” in Indo-Europeans comes from?

lonesomecharlie: That would depend on what anthropologist you agree with. For some, the Nordic People would be very white and non Indo-European. Their origins are believed to be Southern Sweden and Denmark and would included everyone we think of as Anglo-Saxon, including the Normans (Northmen who turned into the French, gasp!)

After the Mirandizing, if someone is found to be waging war against the United States their citizenship rights should be forfeited and they then need to be remanded into military custody for a treason trial and the ultimate punishment if found guilty.

The law enforcement officials would present their evidence that they collected by constitutional means to a military tribunal set up for the purpose — such as the hearings that were conducted for the Gitmo guys. The case would be presented by law enforcement, but the decision would be made by military. We are talking about war and national defense, right?
tommylotto on May 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

We are talking about national defense…but we’re also talking about the nature of the relationship between government and citizens. I’m sympathetic to both camps – and you suggestion seemed like a good compromise.

I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that turning someone over to DoD and military tribunal would have to be the decision of a federal judge (unless the DoJ has this authority granted by Congress in the Military Commissions Law or somewhere else). I don’t like the idea of the military deciding where the trial takes place (and I suspect the military wouldn’t like this either).

Federal authorities arrested a U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent Monday night at New York’s JFK International Airport in connection with Saturday’s attempted Times Square car bombing.

US Citizen’s even those who are accused of the highest crimes are afforded the protections of the United States Constitution. Sorry, but Beck is absolutely right on this. Even a treasonous person such as this Pakistani who is a Citizen of the United States of America gets all rights and immunities granted.

When an airliner leaves the gate, are they still under U.S. legal jurisdiction? Or would the laws of the airline’s home country apply?

hawksruleva on May 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

I’m not a lawyer so I’m just guessing, but I would say that as long as the airplane is on US soil, US laws apply. The runway is US soil. Anything to the contrary would be utterly untenable in terms of enforcement.

But wasn’t Lindh interrogated by our intelligence officials etc before being shipped here and given a laywer, his trial etc? I don’t believe the same rules were applied to him that would be applied to a murderer who is a citizen (or Shazad for that matter).
gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Yes, he was until it was determined he was and American citizen. When captured on the battlefield, they had no idea who he was. Once he was identified as an American citizen, he was shipped back to the US and the pervue was transferred from military to civilian and given the same rules applied to a traitor. He maybe a traitor, but he still has constitutional rights as an American citizen.

After the Mirandizing, if someone is found to be waging war against the United States their citizenship rights should be forfeited and they then need to be remanded into military custody for a treason trial and the ultimate punishment if found guilty.

Otherwise we are pu$$yfooting into oblivion.

profitsbeard on May 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM

The only mechanism for stripping citizenship would be a conviction in in the civilian criminal court system of an offense punishable by such.

If you really think that our government should be deciding someones citizenship status bases solely on their membership in a religion then you are for shredding the Constitution.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Not a religion, but a hostile ideology in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.

Car bombs typically do not fit in the civil criminal court, save for mafia hits that target the individual inside the car, not the surrounding population. The mafia can distinguish between the two and do so, and remain in civil court.

The act of targeting your fellow countrymen for death with a weapon of war is an act of war against your fellow countrymen. Acts of war fall under the laws of war. As far as I can tell there is no double jeopardy between military and civilian venues: you can be tried in either or both, but the action involved determines original venue. Preference is given to the laws of war for they are the attempts of civilized people to reduce the horrors of war, and yet those who wage war contrary to those simple concepts are unable to do the minimal things necessary to be called civilized.

The negative liberty of war of the Nation is within each of us and we agree to invest it in the Nation State for our oversight and to use it for protection of us all. Those who reclaim that negative liberty step from the confines of civilization and reduce themselves afresh to the Law of Nature. Terrorism is a tactic in Private War utilizing the negative liberty of warfare to one’s own ends, and those who have used it fall into the same category: pirates, brigands, armies of thieves…their callings vary, their actions disturbingly similar. If we cannot uphold this primary understanding on why we have the Laws of War then we, in our attempt to be extremely civilized, then lose the point of civilization itself and are nearer to the Law of Nature than any concept of civil law. We have a civil crime of piracy for those who, like Capt. Morgan, returned to society to clear his name… and for those that could be easily caputred when not on their rampages. Thus society welcomes those who atone for their sins against it, and those too pitiful as creatures to run from their actions. Law is to ensure that protection is given to those who abide by it or who can no longer run from it… those on the run are seeking to make further war against us.

War crimes used to be seen as a higher type of crime than mere mass murder: this was not of degree but of kind, and that difference in kind makes a grave difference between war waged under Nature’s Law and a civil crime of horrific extent. If we would but use the piracy codes to understand this difference, and go after those who support our Private enemies, we would be better off. And for those caught making war against us, we should do as Lincoln told the troops to do. We, being less civilized than Lincoln, can only stand in awe at the shadow he cast… and shiver for ourselves being unequal to the task of standing on his shoulders in this realm.

Conversion to a disliked religion immediately makes one a terrorist and constitutes revocation of citizenship…

Yeah…there’s no way that could go horribly wrong…

Dark-Star on May 4, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I think he is referring to religious oaths that appear to supersede citizen oaths. Taken to the extreme, any Christian oath that swears allegiance to a Church above the State would also warrant revocation of citizenship under such a rule.

Not a religion, but a hostile ideology in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this country. You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

So all the muslims serving in our armed forces are traitors to the Constitution? I’d like to see you square that circle.

lonesomecharlie: That would depend on what anthropologist you agree with. For some, the Nordic People would be very white and non Indo-European. Their origins are believed to be Southern Sweden and Denmark and would included everyone we think of as Anglo-Saxon, including the Normans (Northmen who turned into the French, gasp!)

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

At least from a linguistic point of view, the Nordic languages are well-accepted as Germanic languages, which are a sub-family of Indo-European languages.

You simply cannot swear an oath to the Constitution and be a muslem – they are polar opposites in every way.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I suppose there is some anecdotal evidence in favor of that, but can you back it up with something concrete? Can you show that the oaths Muslims swear are in direct conflict with citizenship? If so, I would be all ears — I don’t know enough about Islam to say.

I had watched this exchange when it happened this morning. Kilmeade did not at all looked happy. At one point, I heard him make a grunting noise in disdain to what Beck was saying.

I would suspect that we will see more such incidents with either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens since they would be afforded more protections under U.S. law. Still, that doesn’t trump my desire to give terrorists a good beatin’.

Maybe that’s why they never identified the others who were also removed from the plane, they weren’t citizens. Hopefully they are safely ensconced at Club Gitmo. Forggidaboutit. Big Sis ain’t that smart.

I don’t know where you got that information but it’s nonsensical. I highly recommend that you read The Horse, The Wheel and Language by David Anthony. Its a good start on understanding the origins of Europeans. It also has a wealth of data on 5o years of anthropological research and excavation in the USSR. Some of their discoveries are remarkable, i.e. 6,000 year old IRON implements.

I think he is referring to religious oaths that appear to supersede citizen oaths. Taken to the extreme, any Christian oath that swears allegiance to a Church above the State would also warrant revocation of citizenship under such a rule.
Count to 10 on May 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Of course it would. IF Christians were such extremists that we advocated some kind of Christian version of Shaira law.

But, as it turns out, different religions have different beliefs. Go figure.

Islam is, primarily, a political movement, with an exceedingly thin veneer of religiosity. The clearly stated goal of islam is the submission of the entire world and all the peoples in it, to sharia law. No law of man can supersede sharia law, ie allah’s law, to suggest or claim otherwise is the gravest sin in islam.

Sharia law is an all-encompassing set of laws, rules, and government which can only be described as fascist – it is literally the opposite of our Constitution specifically and Western society in general. All muslems are commanded to work toward that goal of supremacy – that is called jihad.

To be a muslem means to submit, and to force others to submit, to sharia law. Thus no one can, in good conscience, be a muslem and to swear an oath to protect the Constitution. It is simply impossible to do both.

Islam has a solution though – al-Taqiyya. This is an islamic principle where muslems are allowed, in fact encouraged, to lie to the infidel if it advances the cause of islam. When a muslem swears an oath to “protect and defend” the Constitution – they are simply using al-Taqiyya ie lying, to advance their cause.

Thus any and all oaths sworn by muslems on the Constitution is null and void, a lie to advance the cause of islam.

Car bombs typically do not fit in the civil criminal court, save for mafia hits that target the individual inside the car, not the surrounding population. The mafia can distinguish between the two and do so, and remain in civil court.
ajacksonian on May 4, 2010 at 11:06 AM

But even then, why do we have to be quite so persnickety?

Would it really mean the end of the Republic if the Mafia had to be just a tiny bit more circumspect about their means of execution?

lonesomecharlie and Dark Current: Stop for a minute and consider that you may have been fed a line of liberal academic horseshit. Linguistic theories are as ideological as they are scientific and full of speculation. Skull shape studies are more scientific but have been compromised by some of the quackery of the 1800s. The whole field was nearly ruined by Nazi politicizing the science for their own twisted reasons. It was impossible to have an honest discussion on the subject until just a few years ago, and if you aren’t careful, you will still get call a racist.

Bottom line: Nobody knows where whiet people came from but the case for a Nordic origin is as good as any other. It is just that it is politically incorrect since the time of the Nazis.

Sharia Law is theocratically antithetical to our non-theocratic Constitution and Bill of Rights and to believe in the former is to void the latter.

Anyone who adheres to Islam merely mouths any secular oaths as a tactic (taqiyya, or Islamically-sanctified deception of the suckers known as unbelievers) until such time as Mohammedans gain a demographic edge and can move to dominate and subjugate the unclean infidels.

It is the sworn aim of Islam, as codified in the Koran and expounded upon in the Hadiths.

A hudna (or temporary truce) is the only form of “peace” allowed for Muslims with infidels- until the Ummah members can re-arm, re-group and re-attack the kaffir swine.

Until Islam is understood and the Koran read, we are self-gelded and thereby at the mercy of our enemies.

You guys realize that Sharia law is not respected by Sunni Muslims right? Also, Osama bin Laden is a Sunni. I won’t disagree that there a numerous jihadi’s that ascribe to the ideology you describe but this hardly describes the majority of Muslims.

Islam is, primarily, a political movement, with an exceedingly thin veneer of religiosity. The clearly stated goal of islam is the submission of the entire world and all the peoples in it, to sharia law.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 11:29 AM

I’ve heard it suggested before: would Hitler have gotten more support from American liberals if he’d just emphasized the cultish aspects of Naziism a little more?

I remember when Saddam Hussein was given free airtime on every American TV network to explain the reasons behind his occupation. He just jabbered on for half an hour about how he suspected Kuwait of slant-drilling. Apparently, the idiot bought all the Socialist propaganda about how Americans were all “blood thirsty capitalists,” so he naturally assumed we would all be perfectly OK with razing a country over a mineral rights dispute. But, of course, even his most ardent liberal supporters wouldn’t touch that excuse with a ten foot pole.

I personally was stunned at Saddam’s obtuseness. All he had to do was babble incoherently about some imagined thousand-year-old religious dispute, and Western moonbats could have incorporated his propaganda directly into their own — FTW.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

and Congress did exactly that with the Military Commissions Law they passed.

So Beck, Hotair, ACLU….was this an Act of Treason/War or was it a CRIME????

jp on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

If you had actually read the section of the Constitution which you posted (yeah, I know, reading is hard, especially when you’re leading an enraged lynch mob), you’d have noticed that one forfeits one’s rights upon conviction of treason, not upon an accusation thereof. (Note especially the “Confession in Open Court” bit–citizens accused of treason get civilian trials.)

You might also refer to two specific clauses in the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…”, and “…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”.

Constitutional rights exist to protect the innocent. They could not serve to protect the innocent if they were revoked any time some ignorant rube began thirsting for blood. Just because he’s a Muslim does not mean he should be treated any differently than Timothy McVeigh. Convict him first, then string him from a yardarm.

Bottom line: Nobody knows where whiet people came from but the case for a Nordic origin is as good as any other. It is just that it is politically incorrect since the time of the Nazis.

SurferDoc on May 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

First of all, my main point is that there is no such thing as a “white race.” Consider the Ainu (the first settlers of Japan). They look like Norwegians and for years were considered to be caucasian. DNA studies have proved that, not only are they not causasian – they are related to Australian Aboriginies.

All modern humans are indiginous to Africa. About 60,000 years ago a migration left Africa and headed east. Ten thousand years later, a second wave set out but some eventually returned to Africa. Both of these waves differentiated into “white” and “black” skinned ethnic groups and so some “white” groups are more closely related to “black” groups than other “white” groups (and vice-versa). This whole race business is just a made-up device intended to separate people so they can be ruled by power-seekers.

PS – forget that skull shape business, extensive DNA studies have disproved that sillyness once and for all.

Fine, miradize him. He is now guilty of treason against his country as well as the remaining assortment of charges.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Miranda warning remains as stupid today as it ever was . Intended as a guard against police brutality , it never stopped it and never protected an innocent person . The courts pretend to forget who writes the police report and if it is not in the report , it did not happen , everything in the report is the gospel .

Here’s the thing about Miranda. There’s a built in penalty. If you don’t read the guy his rights, you can’t use what he says against him.
EconomicNeocon on May 4, 2010 at 11:48 AM

The thing is, Miranda provides absolutely no penalty for the police officer himself – he gets paid whether the criminal is convicted or not. There are, and have always been, laws on the books for punishing police officers who exceed their authority in questioning subjects. The Miranda Amendment was imposed because, of course, most juries would not do what liberals wanted them to.

Miranda puts all the penalties on SOCIETY, by releasing a known criminal back into our midst. This has nothing to do with the Constitution, and everything to do with liberalism at its most extreme: rewarding the criminal, and punishing the “evil” society that was presumably responsible for making him do what he did.

My larger point is that most Muslims don’t view it as their religious duty to conquer the world and convert it by the sword.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

The Miranda warning remains as stupid today as it ever was . Intended as a guard against police brutality , it never stopped it and never protected an innocent person . The courts pretend to forget who writes the police report and if it is not in the report , it did not happen , everything in the report is the gospel .

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I doubt you apply such strict scrutiny to your own convictions. Regardless, you are entitled to your beliefs.

What then, do you propose America do about its negro Muslim problem? That is how you view their presence as American citizens, right? Problematic?

Anyone who has taken the time to learn even the most rudimentary level of islamic ideology, and read the most elementary islamic texts, knows that’s not the case.

It is plainly stated, the duty of every muslem is to bring the world under islam. That non-muslems continue to deceive themselves as to this basic driving force of islam, is one of the biggest problems we have in defending ourselves.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM

So it’s your thesis that 1 BILLION people are chomping at the bit to subjugate the world?

We can’t start shredding the Constitution ourselves–not if we truly value it. If its values are eternal, they are eternal, and we should treat them as such. This stupid guy will probably walk because he was not mirandized, but our Constitution and our civilization working according to the rule of law is worth preserving.

Most Muslims live under brutal regimes. Those that do remain silent do so because they’d prefer not to be hauled off to prison to be tortured or have their family members brutalized. Jihadi’s also kill and target other Muslims.

Most Muslims live under brutal regimes. Those that do remain silent do so because they’d prefer not to be hauled off to prison to be tortured or have their family members brutalized. Jihadi’s also kill and target other Muslims.

gwelf on May 4, 2010 at 12:39 PM

I don’t see how that contradicts any of my points. Mohammad’s reign was brutal and tyrannical, there’s nothing un-islamic for current regimes to act in the same way. That’s sharia law, the same law that muslems are commanded to bring to the whole world – including and especially America.

I don’t see how that contradicts any of my points. Mohammad’s reign was brutal and tyrannical, there’s nothing un-islamic for current regimes to act in the same way. That’s sharia law, the same law that muslems are commanded to bring to the whole world – including and especially America.

Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:43 PM

You seem to be saying that even if these ‘silent’ Muslims weren’t oppressed by brutal regimes they’d be acting the same way as their oppressors.

Note the vast majority of that billion are completely silent regarding the murder, destruction, and other violence committed by the jihadists – because they know it’s 100% approved islamic ideology.
Rebar on May 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

This is the part that no liberal will ever understand. To them, there is only their parochial version of an eternal “rightness” that surpasses all other belief systems — except, of course, for their own belief system, which they are all fanatically convinced is not a belief system at all.

To the liberal mind, “extremist” Muslims simply pop up randomly in response to imagined western agressions. And they have nothing whatsoever to do with “moderate” Muslims -(defined as every Muslim who is not currently exploding a bomb.)

Those moderate Muslims, of course, must all want exactly the same thing every other good liberal wants: a safe, comfortable Judeo-Christian society, but preferably with all that nasty religion stuff contaminating it.

You can ignore the Constitution limitedly if the President enacts martial law. I pray it doesn’t happen, but it bombs start going off regularly, then I see no choice but for the Congress to declare martial law.

Fine, mirandize him. He is now guilty of treason against his country as well as the remaining assortment of charges.

Americannodash on May 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I said treason, not terrorist. He is a citizen of this country is he not? You’re really losing it, aren’t you?

Treason:

trea·son [ trz'n ]
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
treachery: betrayal or disloyalty.

Review the steps of this citizen behavior leading up to the bombing attempt and afterwards.

My guess is this is why the man became a citizen, so that he would have the right to remain silent.

As for Beck and his concern for the Constitution, it should be noted that the founders did not require law enforcement to read people their rights, that came along centuries later. So, I am not sure that it is as simple as Beck makes it all sound.

If we cannot tell the difference between an act of war and a crime, then how will we decide what to do to defend ourselves? You can dither over constitutional questions ad nauseam (and rest assured, the Messiah & Co. are no better at this than the conversationalists on this blog,) but the enemies who simply hate us for what we are/what we have/who we associate with are not anywhere near as indecisive.

What proof do you have that he is a terrorist? Is every person that uses an explosive device against the public a terrorist?

The guy is a criminal and should be prosecuted to the laws’ full extent. Also, what’s the difference between hate-crime enhancements and terrorist enhancements? Don’t our original laws hold up in most of these cases anyway?

The Race Card on May 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I said treason, not terrorist. He is a citizen of this country is he not? You’re really losing it, aren’t you?

Treason:

trea·son [ trz'n ]
betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
treachery: betrayal or disloyalty.

Review the steps of this citizen behavior leading up to the bombing attempt and afterwards.